- - - -
Now available for preorder:
The San Francisco Panorama.
- - - -
L E T T E R S .
[Please send printable correspondence to mcsweeneysmail@yahoo.com. Thank you.] - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 From: "Brooke Norton" Subject: NYT Dear McSweeney's, Thanks for publishing the email correspondence between DE and DK. Even though I'm just a reader and a fan, I knew that something wasn't right when I read that article. The "pop star" comment especially weirded me out. So, thanks again, and rock on. Brooke - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001From: Akshay Ahuja Subject: new york times clarification Dear Mr. Eggers, I enjoyed your book and like reading mcsweeneys. So I hope you won't be offended when I say that your clarification of Mr. Kirkpatrick's article was unnecessary and mean-spirited. I read the article when it first ran and - although I agree that it contained many distortions that you did a thorough job exposing - didn't think that it made you look bad at all. In any case, anyone that read your book probably got the impression that you're a nice guy, and not greedy, something a comment about a lawsuit or a generally snide tone, no matter how hateful, isn't going to change. The clarification, however, does not make you seem like an especially nice guy. I doubt the article made you lose a single reader or a friend, so why publish something that is deliberately just as malicious (or more) as what Mr. Kirkpatrick wrote, and resort to kind of petulant "you-told-on-me-so-I'm-going-tell-on-you" tactics? Not that you shouldn't respond in any way -- you're perfectly within your rights if you send a letter to the nytimes correcting his article, and never speak to Mr. Kirkpatrick again, and tell everyone you know that he's an awful guy -- but this sort of petty tit-for-tat retaliation doesn't even put you on slightly higher moral ground. One breach of trust doesn't necessarily justify another. In any case, the clarification, justified or not, made for distasteful reading and I don't think it should have been published. Thanks, Akshay Ahuja - - - - Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001From: "Mieka Strawhorn" Subject: Porker/Poker?!? Dear McSweeney's, Recently my friend "Scott" had a small gathering of people over to his house to watch ABC's top rated program The Mole. He provided snacks for the occasion which included deviled eggs, little cheese things, nachos supreme and something he cooked up in his Fry Daddy called a "Porker on a Stick" except that when he brought that out I thought he said "POKER" instead of "PORKER". Either way I wasn't going to eat one. Mieka Strawhorn Berkeley, CA - - - - Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001From: "Billy Morocco" Dear McSweeney's/Dave Eggers, In planning to avoid a dismal Sunday, I printed, but saved for reading, the recent clarification on the Times article. Though it delayed my enjoyment (and my response here), it was the perfect remedy for a slushy weekend. As one just finding my own writing voice, I find myself having to avoid some people (even some friends) who would have me more focused on "success" than stories. The question of how seriously one's convictions and integrity (literary or otherwise) can affect a work is one that can freeze otherwise flowing fingers. For whom and what am I writing? How can I control that? Should I? For me AHWOSG saves itself by its own weapon: words (especially the embossed "clarification/warning" on the cover: "Silence has its own set of problems" [forgive me, or omit, if this is incorrect]). It is hard to face the fact that, even when one can pull together a story, the finished work is going to be yanked through a series of label-affixing tunnels. And that it is With this trepidation that we have to aim if we hope to have the story reach out. An explicit thank you to all at McSweeney's for the balance your publications (existence) brings to the table; and to Mr. Eggers for the addition to one writer's (and reader's) conversations with the self. Bill Morocco Annapolis, MD - - - - Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001From: Laszlo Hollifeld Subject: wow, what support! Dear McSweeney's, I wonder...is your site only publishing the positive feedback for Mr. Eggers' thin-skinned stunt? Love much, Ron Magyar - - - - Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001From: "Daniel Bloom" Subject: the DE and DK thing: a reader's POV: I loved the TIMES piece, no problem with it Hi DE and DK, I read the email exchange. I know neither of the people involved, and live way out here in Taiwan, but I follow book chat all the time, being a writer myself. Funny, I read the Times piece when it came out last week, on the Web, and found it to be very good, and illuminating and interesting .... and never felt at all that it was snide or anything like that. So I think DE is over-reacting to the piece and didn't read it correctly. But then again, that is his POV. However, the use of off the record emails, is a no no for DK and he deserves a spanking for that faux pas. But just to tell you...for a neutral corner ... I loved the Times piece when I read it, still love it, feel DE took it too personally (but understand why) and think DK was a bit unethical in what he did. Now it is all even more interesting and thanks for your piece, too, alerting me to all this. Cheers, Dan Bloom Taipei, USA citizen, 51, no connection to Times or pub biz - - - - Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001From: "Mike Topp" Subject: Dyslexia Dear McSweeney's: I came down with a bad case of dyslexia over the weekday. Regards, Mike Topp - - - - Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001From: "Mike Topp" Subject: Love Is Funny Dear McSweeney's: Love is funny. One minute you're flat on your back, being fed grapes, and next, you're tied to an anthill, covered with honey and grapes. Sincerely, Mike Topp - - - - Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001From: Halcyon Subject: I like your style I don't read the NYTimes. Don't read McSweeny's either, actually. But was pointed to the DK-DE correspondance via metafilter.com. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Love, Halcyon - - - - From: "Don Dowling"Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 Subject: Kirkpatrick exchange; letter to the editor for on-line publication Dear Dave Eggers: My wife & I read your book when it came out, and loved it. As we live in Lincolnshire, Ill. (contiguous to Lake Forest), when we read your book my wife even drove over & checked out your childhood home (the address to which you accommodatingly provide). We also subscribe to the NYT, and caught the Kirkpatrick piece the day it hit. And now I've plowed through your entire "DK-DE" e-mail colloquy, which makes for a great read. (Who'd have guessed a NYT writer couldn't distinguish "addition" from "edition"?) I'm writing with a reality check. As a disinterested admirer of your stuff, I want you to know that Kirkpatrick's piece does not come across as offensive to you. You complain that Kirkpatrick's tone was too snide; I fear you're too close to the situation. Surely you don't expect objective journalism to be fawning puff stuff. Kirkpatrick's piece took a fair middle-ground. Indeed, your substantive beefs laid out in your "DK-DE" e-mail exchange seem petty, to this disinterested fan. For a journalist to quote an off-the-record statement could easily be harmful -- but in this case, Kirkpatrick's off-the-record quotes were innocuous, as were any falsehoods about the lawsuit, the Canadian groupies, and selling tickets for charity. Even if false and even if violations of journalistic ethics, the actual mistakes published in the NYT were far from libelous; indeed, in this disinterested fan's eyes, they didn't even reflect negatively on you. At the end of your "DK-DE" e-mails you ask Kirkpatrick how he'd like it to be said in print that he wears eyeliner and is divorced (assuming these are not true). That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be to ask how Kirkpatrick would like it to be published that he leases a Toyota -- when in fact (let's assume) he owns a Mazda: Totally false -- but who cares? We've all heard, ad nauseam, the warhorse cliche that people trust journalism only until the day they get written about themselves. Everyone except the exceptionally-naive knows that detailed newspaper pieces longer than a couple of paragraphs invariably contain some inaccuracies and reflect their writer's tone of voice. Some stories contain catty libel, and should be censured. Kirkpatrick's doesn't, and shouldn't. I fear you're being too sensitive. You may not like what comes along with being a public figure, but by having published your book you opened the door to articles just like Kirkpatrick's. Lighten up. --Donald Cullinan - - - - Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001Subject: correction Dear McSweeney's, I'm afraid that in his letter to you of February 23, Tom Acitelli misattributes the line "Time wounds all heels" to John Lennon. That is, in fact, an old one-liner, much older than Mr. Lennon. I have, for example, a 1940s pulp detective story with that as its title. Lennon said other quotable things, though. Like "Living is easy with your eyes closed" and "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." Okay. Kevin Walter NYC - - - - Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001From: "Delahaye, Gabriel" Subject: My new roommate, and where does he actually live? Dear McSweeney's, I have this new roommate, so the offer is off. Er, he moved in like two weeks ago and I've seen him once. He doesn't have a bed. He wanted to keep the bed from my old roommate, who was moving out, but I talked him out of it. My last roommate found a giant piece of yellow foam on the street which he wrapped in blankets and sleeping bags. Although he narrowly avoided contracting scabies, he also spilled beer on his bed, which was really just a big sponge, so you can imagine the smell. He carried the yellow foam to work and said Hey, is it cool if I put this in the back? I imagine their reaction to have been similar to my own when he asked me virtually the same question. Actually, he didn't ask, and I paid for the couch, maybe I'm complaining about a moot point, but I really did pay for the couch. My new roommate sleeps on the bare, hardwood floor, and the one time that I've actually seen him since he moved in I saw the pillow on the floor and said You know, S---, you can sleep on the couch. And he said That's cool, but he still sleeps on the floor. Today his door was open and there was the hardwood floor with just a crumpled pair of jeans in the middle of the room. - - - - Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001From: "IoIoC" Look we met neal pollock we read all your books we got a good thing check us out on E! look at our commercial and we talk from france we call you and we talk about working together good? [address omitted.] Thank you so much, ioioc - - - - Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001From: Karl Sabbagh Subject: FIFTH WINDOW ON THE LEFT Dear McSweeney's, I was once in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, doing some research for a television programme about Ramanujan. While there I happened to pick a book off the shelves which had a photograph of a vaudeville performer, Mrs Senrab. I showed this to my colleague, Christopher Sykes, who was with me, and asked if he saw anything strange about her name. He said no, and I pointed out that it was actually 'Barnes' backwards. Whether she had just turned her own name in reverse to produce a more exotic stage name I don't know. I then said "It's like the street in Washington called 'Tunlaw' which is actually 'Walnut" backwards. There was a gasp from a nearby table where a young American woman was working. "I live on Tunlaw!" she shrieked, quietly. What caps the whole story is that Christopher Sykes lives in Barnes. Karl Sabbagh - - - - Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001Subject: That article from the "Times" Actually I didn't think that the article in the "Times" about David Eggers was that bad. A bit snide maybe but it is the "Times" after all. I though the whole e-mail deconstruction was pretty fascinating to read. But if you're so pissed he published your not-for-attribution e-mail....do 2 or 3 wrongs make a right? Was it cool that you did the same thing? .k - - - - Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001From: Laird Brown Subject: a message to dave .. Dear Mr. Eggers, I am sorry to hear that you received some miscolored press in the New York Times. Even though it rubbed you the wrong way, you will not be marked by it. The Times readership, however, does not enjoy your good fortune. Once I was walking through Bloomies and was accosted by a superior young man. He attempted to sell me a pair of reading gloves. Specifically, they were reading gloves for the New York Times, Sunday edition. The gloves looked very much like the white cloth gloves gentlemen used to wear to formal dances, except they were black. And they were black because the Sunday Times is so sooty, that if you weren't wearing black gloves when you started reading the paper, you would be when you finished. So Bloomingdales decided to market black reading gloves at ten dollars the pair. I declined the offer. I understood that my hands would be protected from cheap ink. But over time, it struck me that I'd be wearing something akin to boot polish rags to read a newspaper. This hardly seemed stylish, nor worthy of Bloomingdales. So I commiserate with you. A smear, or even smudge, is an uncomely thing. On a cheerier note, I heard that you will be coming to Toronto in the near future. My friends at This Ain't The Rosedale Library bookstore will be sponsoring your appearance. I very much hope to attend this event and will dress appropriately. I expect to wear brown leather gloves. It can be coolish in Toronto. Warmly - laird brown - - - - Read Previous Letters:
|
Red dot denotes content that is new today.
Black dot denotes newish content.